Hi On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 7:03 AM, Paul POULAIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For at least 2 reasons : > - it is an obviously "long" process to add a bug. If we have found a > small & quickly fixed bug, then there is no need to add a bug imo.
Small bug = quick description, therefore less time to enter a bug. :) For things like typo corrections, we don't necessarily need to file a new bug for each one, but even just having a standing typo bug would be useful: translators could watch for that bug number. > Having a complete patch comment is necessary for the ppl > reviewing/validating the patch. But the need of a bug.koha.org is > unclear to me (the PATCH-sent thing is not enough imo) Sometimes a patch description isn't enough - for a complex bug that has taken a lot of time and conversation to isolate, having the full history of the bug be available would be immensely useful. > - we (BibLibre) have a specific internal (& french) tool for our > customer requests. When we fix a bug discovered by a client, frankly, > it's a loss of time to translate it to english & rewrite it to bugs.koha.org But we don't get the benefit of your wisdom if the bug description and history is locked away in your internal bugs database. :) LibLime also has an internal bugs database, but that's mostly for truly internal stuff; for anything that we submit patches for, we have a goal of making sure that a good bug description is entered in the public Bugzilla. I recognize that you have pressures on your time. I don't think you necessarily need to spend time translating your bug descriptions by hand; quick machine translations would be sufficient. Regards, Galen -- Galen Charlton VP, Research & Development, LibLime [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: 1-888-564-2457 x709 skype: gmcharlt _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha.org/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
